9teeneleven

Which part of the aluminum do you want me to shoot first?

From what I've read, once you get shorter than 14" with 5.56 you get ice pick holes. The .223 bullet loses its only advantage, speed. If you are going to get a short barreled upper, then I would seriously look a 6.8. Much better ballistics in shorter barrels. The ammo will cost more, but the upper will be about the same.

+1 on Spikes. I've ordered stuff from them, and have had a great experience.

Dealers tend to get aggravated when they get orphan packages. I always call even if I have done a lot of transfers with them.

Will .3mm actually make that much difference?

I shot .45 for a while before I got into reloading so I had a good stash of brass. I bought a Lee 1000 for $150 set up for .45 from midway. I bought 8lbs of W231 powder for $110 at a show. That is good for around 5k rounds. Primers are $29 per k. I get my Bullets from Roze Dist. $110 for 1k FMJ shipped (this has gone up since the ammo surge it used to be around $80 per 1k). So for .45 these days I am spending about $160 per 1k for good quality FMJ bullets. "I_Like_Pie" is right. You aren't going to save money because you end up shooting a lot more. Since I have my press dialed in I load 1k at a time, and it takes me about 2 months to work my way through it.

The 357 Sigis a good candidate for reloading even though there are a few extra steps like lubing for sizing because you can save so much $$. I load 1k for about $130-140. WWB is $24 for 50. The 357 Sig is also one of the best calibers for use in a glock. Because of the round's great feeding capability due to the bottleneck, Glock made the chamber consistently tight. My .40 glock, on the other hand, has a wider chamber near the base to facilitate feeding. On the spent brass you can see a noticeable bulge in this area. The danger is that this spot is repeatedly stressed and can fail. This is a bad spot (opposed to the case neck) for a failure. For this reason, I reload the .40 brass twice then discard.

Actually it is, just not a constitutional right. It is a right written into most college by-laws and constitutions. But, the logic is even closer than you may realize. No it is not a constitutional right and thus not directly related to the political system. However, it is a recognized privilege and immunity of the free academic system. Again, it is not unlike the Bill Rights. Both the 2nd and tenure are immunities and privileges necessary to protect rights and freedoms within their respective systems. Seems like I am always defending tenure on here (and elsewhere), but it seems like it is regularly under attack. Not trying to derail. Seems to me like these issues might get further on campuses if they were presented in terms that academics and students recognize.

Your post uses exactly the same logic as those opposed to allowing carry and second amendment rights: that because there are some who abuse a right, it should be abolished.

pretty sure that the recoil spring is the same on a 23 and a 19.

all I know is that when I took the class, there were a lot of people who couldn't hit the silhouette even at 5 yards. They passed. I am all for the right to bear arms, but seriously, you gotta do better than that IMO. If you can't get 48 if 50 rounds in the 9 area of a silhouette target, you need to practice before your gun ever leaves the safe.

Glock 23 is less snappy than the glock 22. Not a bad round at all. In the grand scheme of things, a light recoiling round. Welcome to my favorite pistol.

Without. I have an M39 Finnish Mosin. The Bayonets are rare as hen's teeth.

There are great at the range when you are lining up nice targets with good contrast. I took my mosin deer hunting last season and quickly discovered that I wish I had put the blade sights back on. I couldn't see a thing through the mojo sights. I can get within an inch and a half at 100 yards at the range with the mojos, but out in the field, I missed my first deer ever.

I am stunned that supreme court justice could make these comments. The first and second amendments are hardly analogous. No court, State or Federal, has ever argued that we should remove people's larynxes because they have the capability of dangerous speech. What has been ruled is that certain kinds of speech are not protected, i.e. certain uses of the capacity to speak. Last time I checked, many uses of guns are not protected by the 2nd amendment (like the obvious one, murder). The 1st amendment protects an action. The only actions that the 2nd amendment protects are protection and defense. The 2nd amendment explicitly says you cannot infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about the inability to infringe upon using guns to unlawfully murder people. You can't shot "fire!" in a crowded theatre, and you can't shoot someone in cold blood. You don't remove someone's larynx because some people do shout fire in a theatre, and you don't ban guns because some people will murder with them. I really don't see how this is a hard concept. "Without incorporation, it's decided by State legislatures; with, it's decided by Federal judges." Wrong. It is decided by neither, i.e. "shall not be infringed."

I'd love an answer for this one, too. Just starting the process of getting a lower registered.

No real message here except to say that it's almost Turkey time in Tennessee. I had an unlucky deer season, so I am looking forward to turkey hunting. I got a chance to get some bow time in with the nice weather this weekend. I going mostly recurve this season, and am off work from May 5-20th so I am planning on some good turkey days. This is also my first year applying for the WMA quota hunts, when to they usually release the results of the draw?

Luckily, I live 300 yards beyond the city line, and have a big hill behind my house. Shooting is legal and safe; I just want to be respectful to the neighbors, so I forgo shooting.

If you had the option to buy a S&W 629 .44 or a silencer for a glock to shoot in the back yard, which would you get? Shooting in the backyard is about practicality, but also has a number of hassles associated with tax stamps, new sights, barrels and such, and is really very expensive just to shoot backyard. The .44 mag is utterly impractical, because it is useless for HD, and because I'd rather hunt with a rifle or bow, but would be really fun to shoot at the range, and is a beautiful piece. I'd also be able to justify a .44 lever action down the road which I might be inclined to hunt with. Help TGO. Which should it be?

It's such a hit or miss place for me. Sometime, it is impossible to get someone to even show you a gun. Other times, I've had really nice conversations with the staff. The range is ok, but they never have staples! Prices are really high on guns, too high for me to justify supporting the local guy, but so are Coal Creek's. I would like to see the place succeed particularly because it is close to me, but I don't go there simply because it is crazy expensive for a membership. Why pay over $300 a year to shoot in a cave when I can pay a little over $100 a year for all that ORSA has.

Like others have said, the bullets are top notch. Don't know about the loaded ammo.

1) They are HUGE for only holding 8 rounds. 2) If you are used to 1911s and a high thumb grip, you will activate the slide release when firing, causing the slide to not lock back. 3) The finish is not durable. 4) Expensive for what they are. Those are the reasons I sold mine.

Big guy with big hands too. I love my Kimber stainless ii. It is hands down the best shooting gun I own. Very, very accurate, and the trigger is perfect for me. That said, there are a few cons that I will offer up, but cons which for me still don't stop it from being my favorite handgun. 1) The finish is very rust prone, esp. in the humid summers. The barrel is particularly susceptible. You need to always keep it very well lubed. 2) Mine was unreliable out of the box. The chamber was cut too tight, and on the last round of a mag, it would fail to feed. I found Kimber's service to be great. Within a week of sending it in, I had it back working perfectly. I've put thousands of rounds through it since, and have not had a since failure. The gun is the only one I would trust unconditionally now. 3) The Schwartz Series II safety is a hazard. The manual does warn about not depressing the grip safety when putting the slide back on the lower, but not loudly enough. There is a second problem, too. If you hold the gun upside down (which a lot of 1911 owners do to stop the link pin and guide rod from moving) the schwartz pin also will hit the slide just as if you depressed the grip safety. If you know it is there, and take the necessary precautions not to shear off the pin, then you are fine–it is a non-issue. Like I said, those three things in consideration, the Kimber is still the best gun I own. I changed the grips, and added a curved mainspring and magwell. The gun comes stock with a cheap crappy plastic magwell. I have $1k in the gun (came w/night sights).

"To win that war, we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern." I have a hard time disagreeing with anyone who is a fan of the 6.8 spc. But, there are a lot of strawman Obamas being bounced around the political circuit. I'm not in support of most of what he has done, or failed to do since he got in office, but I also don't think we should resort to hyperbole to discuss our displeasure. It is more productive, unless one simple wants to be an obstructionist (that might be a good political strategy, but a very damaging policy strategy), to present actual arguments rather than character attacks. It is a more effective strategy because it lends your opposition legitimacy. There are very few conservative commentators in the public eye who are actually doing conservative principles justice. The rest are showing allegiance to party politics. I think that is disappointing. I don't expect this kind of commentary from politicians, but we should expect it from the media. The problem is that the conservative media are dedicated to party politics and celebrity. Palin is every bit the celebrity that Obama is accused of being. It is a disturbing trend of the last 40 years that the distinction of journalist has completely evaporated. The line between journalist and celebrity is completely blurred, but even more problematic, the line line between journalist and politician is completely blurred. But back to Palin, like I said, connecting with an audience is not a measure of the quality of one's ideas. It's called pandering. I thought that Palin's whole speech was devoid of substance. Take as an example the following quote: "The protections provided, thanks to you, sir, we're going to bestow them on a terrorist who hates our Constitution and tries to destroy our Constitution and our country. This makes no sense because we have a choice in how we're going to deal with the terrorists." I can understand how one might argue that in the U.S. borders we might suspend constitutional rights for terrorists (I wouldn't agree, I think that would weaken our own constitution in the act of defending it, but I don't want to get into that). Yet, Palin does the issue an utter disservice. She boils a VERY complex issue down to something that is black and white and makes no sense. Even if she ultimately disagrees with it, if the reason why we might want to maintain constitutionally protected due process, even when it might have a short term cost, doesn't make sense to Palin then either a) she truly does not understand the complexity of the issue and is a fool, or she understands, but is pandering. As to the issue of teachers painting outside the professional lines into the political picture, in my 8 years as a college student, I never saw it once. On the other side of the exchange, I have seen it a few times (though I've seen it go both ways: left and right). However, the teachers who are truly doing more than teaching tend to be those who are less accountable for what they teach: adjuncts. In today's college landscape, most of the heavy lifting is done by day laborers. It is an increasing trend to cut costs by not having to pay salaries, benefits, and ultimately is an attack on tenure. As a result, teachers are hired, or graduate students employed to teach high load courses. Most of these adjuncts are valuable competent teachers. But the nature of the situation that causes their hiring (often at the last minute) means that there is much less vetting then there would be for a potential full-time tenure track hire. These teachers are also less accountable for what they teach, because they are not subject to promotion and tenure votes. I always try to keep politics out of the classroom, or when I have to, I keep my positions concealed to stimulate thinking by the class. However, if a teacher does bring their own politics into the class, if they are still doing their job, they are stimulating disagreement. Courses at an undergraduate level are not designed to memorize ideas and ideologies, but to begin to foster a critical relationship to them. I couldn't disagree more about more testing. Testing is destroying education at all levels. At the college level, the goal is not to memorize information, but to begin to enter a conversation with it. Right now, there is considerable political pressure to turn colleges into an assembly line. The same flawed methods of test-centric education are being brought to colleges. Attacks on professors as "ranting liberals," and attacks on tenure as "a life time appointment with no accountability" are facilitating these changes and often inspiring them. How do you create a standardized test for critical thinking? How do you measure it? It is very hard to measure the output. What you can control are the input: quality teachers, who have the freedom to develop courses that are effectively meeting course goals. Make those teachers accountable to their peers. It was mentioned recently in another thread that tenure is necessary to ensure that education is not beholden to politics and financial influence. Attacks on tenure have more in common with attacks on the 2nd amendment than most realize. How do you create a nice happy passive society? You remove the tools it has to fight against power. Like firearms, a college education is one of those things. Making testing and outputs the focus of college education is analogous to making the second amendment about "sporting purposes." It allows those in power to control the dialogue, and ultimately, to weaken the tools that might oppose them. How do you dumb down higher education in the name of controlling quality? You begin to remove those who currently control how courses are taught (tenured professors), and replace them with adjunct instructors who have little say over how a course is taught, and no say over what course goals are. Then, you create tests. Tests define education as acquisition and regurgitation of information, rather than a critical relationship to it. As an added bonus, you grant contracts to edu corps who develop software that neatly teaches to the test, and plays a total role in defining the content of the course. Just last year, TBR Chancellor Manning offered a proposition that all college students in Tennessee be required to take online courses. This is a viable political solution, because it is seen at the political level as solving all of the above. Gun control is done in the name of public safety. Education reform is done in the name of quality. Don't believe either. You are right that education is what you make of it. Some of the smartest people I've met, I met when I was framing houses. Intelligence hides itself in many unexpected places. What higher education does is give people a chance to hone their intelligence, and learn to use new intellectual tools. Can that happen outside of a college? Of course. Do I get the longest TGO post ever award?

And 10% of those that do try to unscrew the mag release